User talk:Adam Bishop/archive

(changed Elaine Ike Benes to Elaine Marie Benes....Elaine Ike Benes? Huh?)

There was an episode of Seinfield (the specifics escape me) where Elaine made a joke about her middle name being Ike.

Found it... episode name "The Big Salad":

George: Elaine, Julie.
Elaine: Hi.
Julie: Oh, hi.  Elaine's my middle name.
Elaine: Oh, mine's "Ike".

-- goatasaur

Ah, that is true, I remember that now....but there are times when Jerry calls her "Elaine Marie Benes," which is presumably her actual full name. Thanks. Adam Bishop 23:32 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, her real middle name is "Marie". -- goatasaur

Welcome Adam,

You have done a good job so far in Wikipedia, also called 'Pedia or WP. I can see that you're a serious Wikipedian interested in improving our project. If you stay for a while, you'll discovered that collectively, we're a cooperative and friendly community. We are all here to learn, and hopefully can give something back. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include:

Just keep in mind that while relevant discussions and constructive criticisms and are welcome, anything unproductive and/or destructive in nature is not. More importantly, we do not tolerate discrimination of any kind. Who knows? Perhaps you'll soon become a Wikipediholic and/or one of Wikipedia:Most active Wikipedians! :-) --Menchi 23:30 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! This place is fun, although it is still a little initimidating...there is so much I don't know! But I look forward to adding as much as I can to the site. Adam Bishop

Good work on the Group of Seven. How about the "Beaver Hall Hill" artists? Joe Canuck 22:41 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever heard of them...who are they? Adam Bishop 22:46 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A bunch of quite proper ladies from wealthy families in Montreal who in the 1920's painted together and were associates of some of the Group of 7. (There was a romance with one but can't recall who. CBC-TV stuff.) Prudence Heward et al. Heward went to Paris. Try Google. Good luck. Joe Canuck 22:53 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I started an article: Beaver Hall Group Joe Canuck 23:06 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Cool...nice work. Adam Bishop 00:02 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Adam -- Re London, Ontario: Do CFPL radio and TV still have the same owners? Good additions to the article. Jfitzg

Thanks for checking it out, Adam. For some reason it never occurred to me to do it myself. I guess I was in a hurry this morning, but more likely it was just too early. Jfitzg

Hey, welcome to wikipedia, if only there was more time in the day. I have had this idea to cross reference all the questions in the Stanford archives with wikipedia (1) to make sure that wikipedia had an entry on any tossup-worthy question and (2) to add useful facts (after checking them of course). I only got through one pack (ACF '94 Emory I believe), but if every active quizbowler did one pack a week, we would be done in no time. One can dream. Anyway, spread the word, this seems a perfect trap for wayward quizbowlers. dml

If you want to do the Byzantines, that would be excellent. :) I was planning on doing it, but I've had a couple of beers, and after having slogged through the US presidents with that I'm not sure I trust myself to do it right at the moment. *grin* - Hephaestos 01:58 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the Joseph Brant article, its a good start. Your interest in that area of history makers me want to explain part of my 'to do list'. I've created a couple of references, and plan on two articles to be labeled Invasion of Canada (1775) and another for (1812). I've got notes building for the 1775 article but will probably never get further than a stub for the 1812 one. I just wanted you to know were I'm headed, since we'll probably cross paths again. Thanks again ..Lou I 22:21 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all those Byzantine emperor blocks. (Quite a lot of them, and the succession wasn't exactly smooth either.) - Hephaestos 06:51 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ditto on the Byzantine Emperor blocks -- & I see that you are now working on the Roman Emperor blocks. (The Roman Emperors & the Popes are the two major lists that don't use this template for some reason.) But I have a quibble here: you stated that some of the Roman Emperors were Byzantine ones that really don't fit that category (e.g., Gratianus). I think we need to determine some division point -- either the death of Theodosius I or an important milestone afterwards, OR use both titles to some point between Justinian & Heraclius' death. -- llywrch 04:52 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I was fixing up some of the Roman ones, but I don't know as much about them...I could still add the template though. I was thinking the same thing about when the Byzantine emperors start...in the case of Gratianus, the Valens page already had him listed, so I just kept him. Personally, I would start with Constantine, but my main Byzantine history text book that I've been using starts as early as Diocletian, and the roman-emperors.org website starts as late as Arcadius. Maybe Adrianople could be the cut off, and the list could start with Theodosius. Adam Bishop 06:55 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, Theodosius is well known as the last emperor of the undivided Roman Empire, so I would say that Arcadius should be considered as the earliest Byzantine Emperor in the title blocks. One can also make an argument that Justinian is considered a Roman (in distinction to a Byzantine) emperor because of his work codifying Roman Law & his reconquest of Africa, Italy, & part of Spain. And many of his predecessors played a role in the politics of Western Europe.

Obviously, this is a POV issue, which needs noting somewhere in Wikipedia. (Yes, I have seen many Byzantine Imperial histories start with Constantine I, so this is an acknowldeged POV; however Gibbon's classic work traces the Roman Empire to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, so there are other opinions on this subject.) Unfortunately, the Roman Empire article is woefully incomplete, most likely because of the size of the topic daunts most who attempt it, so perhaps this should be added to the Byzantine Empire article.

Do you think it would a good solution to list the emperors from Arcadius to Justinian as both Byzantine & Roman Emperors? -- llywrch 16:23 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

We could list both eastern and western emperors, on the Roman Emperors list. Then when there are no more western emperors, that could be the start of the Byzantine list - in that case Zeno I would be the first on the Byzantine list. Adam Bishop 17:34 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ah, now that I look at the Roman list, it's already like that, sort of... Adam Bishop 17:35 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Take a look at the changes I made to Gratianus (which I confused with Valens above -- the Valens article was the one you used the new template on), Theodosius I, & Flavius Augustus Honorius for an example of what I was thinking of doing. If you don't like the dual listing under Theodosius I, feel free to revrt. -- llywrch 21:50 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think that's fine, unless someone comes up with something better...the only clearer way I can think of is to include big family trees :) I'll try to come up with a note for the List of Byzantine emperors page, too, that might help. Adam Bishop 22:09 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Good job with the additions to the Kingdom of Jerusalem article. I'd written most of the previous article, and it's definitely much better now. I'd been intending to do more stuff with crusader state related articles, as there's much to do. I don't think there are articles on any of the other crusader states, for instance. Anyway, just wanted to compliment you on the good work, and urge you to keep it up. john 01:20 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! I was planning on writing about the County of Edessa as well, and maybe Antioch. I don't know much about Tripoli, but I do have a bunch of textbooks I could use...I think I'm learning more about the Crusades from contributing here than I did by taking a class about them! Adam Bishop 04:29 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'd recommend Runciman's three volume history of the Crusades, if you haven't read it already. It's well-written, and probably the best narrative history of the period, and it focuses on the crusader states much more than on the western crusaders. It's particularly good for the 13th century stuff, which most people seem to ignore (including, for the most part, our article, at the moment, for which I am probably most to blame) It's a bit light on analysis, though. I'll try to write a bare bones (at least) County of Tripoli article, and leave Edessa (and Antioch?) to you. john 05:54 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've read most of Runciman. I would also recommend Setton's history, which is even longer than Runciman's (six volumes). Joshua Prawer wrote a lot of great stuff too. We didn't really focus much on the 13th century in the class I took, I guess because the kingdom wasn't very powerful by then...anyway, I'll see what I can find for Edessa, at least. Adam Bishop 06:08 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, one of my profs was friends with Runciman...when Runciman died, he spent a whole class telling stories about him, like that he learned Thai just for fun. Adam Bishop 06:27 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Per Colin McEvedy, dating the Byzantine Empire from Heraclius' reign does make a bit of sense: Heraclius was the last Emperor to hold territory south of the Tarsus mountains -- i.e. Syria, Palestine & Egypt. After that, the Byzantine Empire acquired its "classic" realm of Asia Minor, Greece, the Balkans & the foot of Italy. It seems that the story of the Byzantine Empire gets under way when the following themes are in the forefront: (1) the struggle of Emperor & Christianity; (2) constant fighting with the Muslims (first the Arabs, then the Turks); and (3) Greek culture & literature. While all of these play a role in the history of the Roman Empire from Constantine the Great on -- & several historians have pointed this fact out -- IMHO they don't become primary until after Justinian, & perhaps not until after Heraclius. -- llywrch 06:00 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hey, for the Raynald of Chatillon article, do you think that title is appropriate? It comes, I imagine, from the 1911 Encyclopedia, and I've always seen it spelled "Reynald". I might move it, unless you think "Raynald" is better. john 06:35 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Could you give some comments on "The living or the dead?" in Talk:Canadian Confederation? Thanks. --Menchi 05:15 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I checked some websites and they said the band's name was The Guess Who, not Guess Who. I presume unless the websites are wrong (which is quite possible. I am no fan of google searches) you dropped the definite article because wiki normally does that. However it does not do that if The is actually in the title, eg, The Irish Times, unlike the Pope, the Irish Independent. As the band's name apparently does include the definite article as part of the name , I have moved the article to The Guess Who. lol FearÉIREANN 03:03 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well I guess I learned something new tonight. I never heard of either Guess Who or The Guess Who. Band names can be so much fun. In Ireland we have a band called Therapy? and they cause chaos in newspapers. Invariably there is some sub-editor somewhere who has never heard of them and changes Therapy? to Therapy, leading to major rows and complaints to the newspaper from horrified fans. (At least The Eagles who are playing on my computer's iTunes right now (to be followed by Depeche Mode and U2) don't cause too many problems, though a member of Bono's family tells the story of a British newspaper that did a report on one of their gigs. As we used to do, the copy was read in over the phone. But the copy-editor was either not a rock music fan, was half asleep or hated U2, and so typed up the text as Ewe too. They also got the location wrong, so U2 play Slane was typed up as Ewe too play slain and it made it to press, as somehow no-one noticed it before the paper was put to bed. (journo-sleep for finished) Oh well.) :-) FearÉIREANN 03:23 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I hope I haven't caught you too late. There is an error in the Governor-General template. It is missing the hyphen in Governor-General. (It is in as Governor General!). lol FearÉIREANN 21:28 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm afraid it definitely is hyphenated. (I've recently had to write 50,000 words on the Irish Governor-General, and that title was taken directly from Canada.) Basically the key word in the title is governor. The general is a qualifier which means in effect overall, ie, superior in rank and constitutional to all over governors (provincial, state, local etc). In modern english if being created now it would probably be general governor. But the words were reversed and hypenated. (As in president-elect, Attorney-General, etc, the key word being president and attorney). In contrast Lord Deputy or Lord Lieutenant aren't, because the key word isn't Lord but Deputy or Lieutenant. Some hypenated words have lost their hypen over time (through illiteracy rather than a deliberate decision) but Governor-General hasn't.

As to the official website, that sounds a classic case of what some Irish civil servants call the OSMS meaning Oh Shit Mistake Syndorme. What happens is an outside expert is commissioned to do something (usually design a website). A mistake is made. The civil servant spots it, presumes it would be dead easy to fix, so easy that it would be embarrassing to have to ask for it to be fixed. Except that in reality he doesn't have a goddamned clue how to fix it. So, like someone who dinges their partner's car and is too embarrased to admit it, he walks away and hopes that no-one will notice or that if they do, they will know how to fix it. Or else a junior civil servant who doesn't know about the hyphen or doesn't think it important had the site designed and has never spotted the mistake. And the senior civil servants who would know aren't very computer-literate and so haven't visited the site and so never noticed. I've lost count of the number of major websites I have come across with monumental errors because of this. As a result I have learned never to trust websites and treat Google searches not so much with a pinch of salt as a bucket of salt! (eg, a user on wiki tried to put on a ludicrous definition of the terms Royal Prerogative and Divine right of kings on wiki. He was blocked so he had now put it on a separate website. So a google search will throw up his nutty theory as a real definition.

Even a google search shows clear evidence of the OSMS. Some documents use a hypen, others don't. Some have spelling mistakes. GG is hypenated in some parts of a document, then loses it in others. The 1982 Constitution Act in some versions hypenates it, others don't. Some bizarrely even have a Governor general, one I found governorGeneral!!!

The site called Governor General of Australia contains he following paragraph:

In 1936, the Commonwealth reopened Admiralty House as a Sydney Residence for the new Governor-General, Lord Gowrie. Successive Governors-General have since used Admiralty House as their residence when in New South Wales. Formal title to Admiralty House finally passed from New South Wales to the Commonwealth by Crown grant in 1948 on condition that the House be used only as a residence for the Governor-General.

So the article is de-hypenated, but the text hypenated! The 1996 installation of the Aussie GG uses governor-general. An earlier one doesn't.

So as in some many technical areas, the net is unfortunately a very poor source of information. (It would be nice if google had an authenticated sources search as opposed to a anything written on the topic no matter how much bullshit it contains search.) But technically and grammatically the words are hypenated and were so in hard-copy versions of the primary sources. We should aim to achieve primary source accuracy where possible rather than contribute to net confusion, at least in theory! :-) FearÉIREANN 23:10 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The official web site of the Governor General of Canada does not use a hyphen. I would think that Her Excellency (and her staff) would know her proper title. - Cafemusique 21:38 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I checked the hardcopy version of the two reports of Australia's Republic Advisory Committee. Volume II does into detail on international governors-general and presidents. It was prepared by a professional secretariat for then Prime Minister Paul Keating. (A copy also went to the Queen). It also contacted each state and quotes and refers to various commonweath constitutions. All GGs are hypenated, including the Canadian governor-general, in the document. Given the document's importance and prestigé and the fact that it dealt directly with governors-general directly, it is unlikely that they would have used the wrong form.

BTW it is more than likely that a state would use either the same outside agency or the same in house team to computerise all their records so there is nothing that surprising about all state web pages in Canada you found not using hypens if the same team of people had had the task of computerising all the major constitutional documents and setting up websites.

Even if perhaps for linguistic reasons to do with French speakers, it was decided in Canada to de-hypenate the governor-general, it probably would make sense to apply the same standard spelling to the office worldwide. Otherwise you could have a repeat of the czar/tsar mess or the problem with two methods of westerning Chinese names. The Irish gg was 100% written as governor-general not governor general. The formal document installing the last governor-general of Australia used a hypen. Formal state documents in New Zealand use a hypen. Hypenating some governors-general and not others would produce a textual nightmare on wiki, with someone seeing a de-hypenated gg in Canada and removing the hypen in Ireland. Then someone reinstating it in Ireland and installing it in Canada. People constantly de-hypenating and re-hypenating governos-general in Ceylon, Belize, New Zealand, Australia, etc. On balance, even if the Canadian GG is de-hypenated, (and I'm not convinced!) it would probably make sense to keep a general wiki standard wiki-wide. FearÉIREANN 22:56 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've copied the above in an attempt to consolidate discussion at Talk:Governor General of Canada. - Cafemusique 00:30, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Re Edessa: Sorry about that! Didn't realize you were working on that part. - Hephaestos 20:49, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hey I was trying to figure that out too, I was reading the talk page about Mac. Basically what I did was jusr revert what the user had change. I think some of the stuff could have been left as R. O . M and not FYROM, but what should be listed ROM vs FYROM ?

I would think anything tied to international groups ie UN would have to be FYROM but some of the geography things maybe could be ROM. User:Smith03

Non-1967 Confederation Father

At Canadian Confederation article, I was trying to give some examples to the mini-paragraph "latter "fathers" for bringing in additional provinces to the original four are not usually called as such...", but I could not think of appropriate ones, and my most familiar Joey Smallwood is often called "the last living 'Father of Confederation'". Perhaps these "founders" are indeed frequently called "Fathers"? What are the names you've heard to describe them? --Menchi 05:26, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Cool! You clarified that before I started writing this! :-o --Menchi 05:28, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

VfD

When you list a page on Votes for deletion you must say "Listed on Votes for deletion" on the page you are listing. Otherwise the page will not get deleted. --mav 23:51, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, yes I'd certainly welcome some help with the wikiproject battles. Your articles on the 1812 war look good. TeunSpaans 12:17, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC) Do you also have some info on the many byzantine wars and battles? TeunSpaans 12:17, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Adam, I'm really sorry - I just mistakenly deleted your image Image:Justinian.jpg! I meant to revert and deleted instead. Many apologies - I'm just about to go through my cache and see if I can recover it, but if you can re-upload that will probably be quicker. Sorry again! -- sannse 19:25, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A silly mistake - I was uploading a compressed version of the coin image, and with the similar file names of the two images (Justinian.jpg and Justinian.jpeg) I overwrote the wrong one. So I tried to fix my mistake and deleted instead of reverted! I herby revoke my admin privileges for the next five hours ;) I'm glad you got it back OK -- sannse 19:44, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I was just wondering if the pictures from http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ were ok because I noticed the site said "Copyright © 2001-2003 historyofmacedonia.org All rights reserved". Sorry to bother you if this is something that's already been cleared up. M123 20:01, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm the guy that kept changing "Wikipedihol" to "Wikipedia." What exactly do you mean by "Wikipedihol"? Lypheklub 06:22, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, There appears to be an incomplete sentence in your article on The Birds. --Jose Ramos 07:50, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey, Adam. Thanks for correcting me in the Betazoid article, but I'm not sure your correction was correct :). Visit the Talk page for Betazoid please. -- Tjdw

Hi Adam! In response to your question:

it doesn't seem that Nestorianism and Monophysitism came after Pulcheria...Nestorius, at least, was a contemporary, and the Nestorianism and Monophysitism articles say both were condemned at the Council of Chalcedon, which she helped organize (though that article is pretty stubby and doesn't mention either). That is also the understanding I got from the Byzantine history textbook I tend to use for Byzantine articles. Have I misunderstood something somewhere?

Working thru the materials about Nestorius, Ibas (who some say helped promote Nestorianism), Severus of Antioch, etc., it appears that Nestorianism actually developed in the generation after Nestorius, adhering to a version of Christology that Nestorius briefly advocated, then anathemated. According to Kenenth G. Holum, Theodosian Empresses, he advocated it one Sunday at the pulpit in a misogynist fit at Pulcheria. Obviously, she took offense, & pulled the necessary strings to have him deposed & exiled.

Ibas has been creditted with espousing Nestorianism, but he, too, is a victim of historical misinterpretation, & having been dragged into the Three Chapters Contraversy. (He is recorded as having anathematized Nestorius.)

As I understand it, Nestorianism has nationalist sympathies with Persia, & did not become a self-conscious faction until late in the fifth century. But then, the only motivation I can understand behind all of the fierce contraversy over these subtle distinctions would come from local connections; i.e., enough people felt, "This is how my teacher/my parents taught me was right, & I'm not about to let someome in Constantinople tell me what's right!" Feel free to correct me for espousing a POV ;-).

Another problem is that until the Council of Chalcedon, these differences were not seen as significant. Unfortunately, the imperial politics in the generations that followed defined factions according to their Christological beliefs, & their harmony with the Patriarch of Alexandria. So I base the fact Monophysitism developed as a defined belief or faction in response to the political enviornment following Chalcedon. This "heresy" doesn't even have a consistent name in the historical literature, called in various places acephalism, Severanism and Eutychianism.

Note: I am not a theologian. I don't even attend church regularly.

But I agree with you more work needs to be done on the Council of Chalcedon. -- llywrch

(Oops, forgot to sign my article.) Well, Adam, I you may think I know more about this topic than you, but you are definitely my superior at the number of edits. Good work. -- llywrch 19:10, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, you said that you don't know what ban is. Well, you could just look it up in Wikipedia ;) Nikola 09:48, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Poof! You've got sysop rights. Use them well. As your first act, let me suggest that you update Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Recently created admins and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to reflect your new status. --Uncle Ed 18:52, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam! Thanks very much! I can now make lists of everything (i'm a bit list-addict) except consuls that is already done. With wiki-love, Muriel Gottrop 09:20, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Llwyrch just told me (and i should have suspected) that you are also interested in Roman issues. I would apreciate your opinion on my Ancient Rome Proposal Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 10:08, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Deletions

You might want to correct an article rather than deleting it. Hands Across America could be transformed from graffiti into the beginnings of a decent article with about 5 minutes work on your part. Just do a search on Google, read a web page or two, and summarize what you find.

Fixing is usually better than deleting, although I do commend your vigilance in ridding the 'pedia of graffiti! --Uncle Ed 14:18, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam! About the first bishop of Jerusalem, according to Eusebius that was James the Just. I think James the Less was another Apostle, along with James the Great -- neither of whom were related to Jesus Christ, as James the Just is said to be (according to such sources as Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, and Galatians 1:19). I'll be honest: I'm not certain about all of the relationships between these people (e.g. whether one or more of these James is fictional), & the matter isn't any clearer due to Christian dogma about the nature of Jesus Christ, which forces the logical conclusion that He was an only child. (Although there is sufficient evidence that He had a number of step or half siblings.)

BTW, I wrote the article on James the Less, & right now I'm not very happy about it: it suggests erroneously that the first bishop, James brother of Jesus, & the writer of the epistle all were the same person, when the matter is still under debate. It also needs some more suorce citations. If I find the time today, I'll fix it. -- llywrch 18:13, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Quote:the matter isn't any clearer due to Christian dogma about the nature of Jesus Christ, which forces the logical conclusion that He was an only child. (Although there is sufficient evidence that He had a number of step or half siblings.)

This applies only to the Roman Catholic view, not to the protestant views, liberal or orthodox. Protestantism freely ackowledges brothers and sisters of Jesus, based on texts like Luke 8:19-21. I dont know Russian and Greek Orthodox opinions on this subject. TeunSpaans 20:27, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You wrote:

That's what I thought...I always get confused about the various Jameses. Isn't there also a James, Son of Zebedee? It's crazy :) The reason I was wondering is because I linked to James the Less in the Patriarch of Jerusalem article. The source I had said "James the Lord's brother", so if that's James the Just I'll fix that link.

I just took a look at the article Patriarch of Jerusalem, & it has the same link to James the Just I put there. Are we talking about the same article? (And yes, all of these Jameses are enough to confuse anyone. I figure to successfully graduate from a ministry, one of the questions has to be on identifying all of these homonymic people in the 1st century. ;-) -- llywrch 00:39, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Adam, I had a look at the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem article, & it looks good. (You already made the change of James the Less => James the Just.) A couple of ideas:

From my most recent reading of Eusebius, I've noticed that although he follows the succession of Jerusalem closely, he gives pride of place to the archbishop of Caeserea. The Council of Nicaea confirms the fact that (in at least the 2nd & 3rd centuries) Caesarea was the seat of the metropolitan of Palestine in the language they use to promote Jerusalem's bishopric. There must be a story to tell in this.
Unlike Alexandria & Antioch, Jerusalem did not suffer a schism in its Patriachate. That is an item worth investigating.

(I don't expect you to know the answers to these points. But they serve as a place to start for someone who is interested in further research.)

I think the list of bishops/patriarchs should be split off into its own article, a List of Patriarchs of Jerusalem. In any case, the names need to be put into English forms (e.g., Justus instead of Ioustos, Juvenal instead of Iouvenalios). Some of these figures are already accumulating links (Juvenal of Jerusalem is one who comes immediately to mind.) -- llywrch 04:27, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Normally, if somebody moves page A to location B, then it's possible to use the "Move this page" feature to move it straight back. This is because after the move, the contents of page A are "#REDIRECT [[B]]", and the software allows you to move a page over an already existing page if the only content there is a redirect to the page you're moving (does that make sense?). The reason I had to delete a page before I could make the move back just now is that Michael moved page A to location B, and then from B he moved it to C, which meant it wasn't possible to move C back to A, because A now redirected to B. And if you can understand that, you're doing better than me :)

To put it simply: in almost all cases, if somebody moves a legitimate page to a junk page, you can just click on "Move this page" and move it back to the old location. If that doesn't work for whatever reason, then the old location needs to be deleted first.

Thanks for helping clean up after Michael, by the way - much appreciated :) --Camembert

On Titus I couldn't, but on Seneca the Younger I just did. I hope that is where you wanted it moved to. I was just trying to see if it would work and ir did. The theory is that if a page history has nothing more than a redirect, you should be able to move a page into it without deleting it first, but it doesn't always work. I didn't do the other one. Angela 03:43, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to Wikipedia:Duplicate articles; I didn't know about it. -- BenRG

Salve Adam, I made a few changes to your proposed Latin Wikipedia submission, all but one of which you should accept as suggestions. The one exception is that I believe dignitas to be a better choice than nomen.

Actually, my Latin is very rusty -- which is why I'm encouraging people to contribute to the Latin Wikipedia than to contribute myself -- & any feedback you get there concerning your use of lingua Latina would be far superior than anything I could contribute. So I'd advise you to just be bold & submit your work, & proudly accept those Wikipediholic points; & at last the Latin Wikipedia might have articles about Rome & her history comparable to the other Wikipedias. -- llywrch 00:01, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Latin Wikipedia article looks good. -- llywrch 18:57, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Chemistry is a very important part of Soil degradation! Do not oppose me! Soliguy 20:47, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It wasn't Soilguy2. Do you have any other ideas? It's easier to discover the IP address of a user than to try to determine the user with a given IP address. -- Tim Starling 04:07, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)

Correction: it may well have been Soliguy/Soilguy2, just under a different IP address. S/he viewed some Soliguy-related pages, although s/he didn't edit them. -- Tim Starling 05:09, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)

Bear

I understand you requested an article on the Prime Number Shitting Bear. Sadly, I'd never heard of it before today, but I managed to find a few references to it. Hope this helps. ;) -- Oliver P. 16:19, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Adam, re Battle of Marathon, my understanding is that once photos are contributed, anyone is free to do whatever they like with them, just like text. So feel free. I appreciate you asking, though.

I see we have many interests in common (if you visit my homepage you will see). I can contribute photos to some of your other articles, since I was in Greece and Turkey last year. Its good to see people here taking history seriously.

A question: why do we persist in calling it the Byzantine Empire? It was the Roman Empire, right through to 1453. This was a 19th century historians' fetish which should be reversed IMHO. Adam 03:17, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Adam 03:17, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mystras photo added - feel free to crop it if it's too big. It's the most stunning spot, have you been there? I took my nephews there to see their first "real castle." Not a bad place to start. If we don't have entries on Nauplio or Epidaurus I might do them as well. Adam 03:53, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC) I see Epidaurus has been done :(

Amenhotep

Well, then, the person who added Amenhotep as an alternative transliteration for Imhotep, here, was confused. In fact, the oldest version of the Amenhotep page was a redirect to Imhotep! I'm checking with him now, it's possible that he confused him with the Amenhotep who was an architect for a later king (also called Amenhotep, confusingly). Noel 13:13, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

At first I did assume they were alternative transliterations - Egyptian script didn't include vowels, so the name Amenhotep would have been written something like "mnhtp" anyway. But now that I think about it, the transliteraton of Imhotep ought to be "mhtp" - and there is that Amenhotep who was an architect, so if there's an error maybe that's the source of it. No problem with the edit - it brought it to our attention as a potential problem (the Wikipedia does have errors), we'll get it sorted out, and make a note of the details of the situation in the talk page. Noel 13:51, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You're a sysop, right? If so, you can block signed-in users by going to an address like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Blockip&ip=SomeUser - I normally do it by clicking on "block" next to one of the IP addresses in Recent changes, and then changing the dialogue as appropriate. Of course, one should only block signed-in users in extreme cases (Michael doing the usual counts as "extreme" :) It used to be that only developers could block people with user IDs, but that was changed a few weeks ago (largely because of our friend Michael, I think). Hope that helps. --Camembert

You can also get there via the "Special pages" menu. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 02:01, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Or go straight to Special:Blockip. Angela 02:02, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! Adam Bishop 02:08, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hello Adam! Lots of Wiki-love for you! For knowing that there was a Leonidas in Thermopylae, and what was Thermopylae! Sometimes i feel a bit geeky with my history passion and is always nice to now i'm not alone... :) Muriel Gottrop 19:16, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Have you seen the latest version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers? Llywrch added a spiffy disambig strategy that should be able to help deal with the minor rivers named Thames. Stan 04:20, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

i got your messaage about Saint Bernadette. Ive been on a mission lately as you can see if you look at my user contributions, to write articles abouts saints. I think Saint Bernadette should have been a redirect but I thought i searched wikipedia for saint bernadette. Sorry about that. Alexandros 05:21, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've unblocked 216.68.43.85. You suggested on User talk:216.68.43.85 that he would be blocked if he continued to vandalise VfD and RickK then blocked him. However, I am not convinced the blanking of VfD was deliberate. This has happened to other people on large pages and appears to be a browser issue. Judging from the edits to List of comedies from this IP and to Family Matters (television) from a similar IP, this user does not appear to have shown any other signs of vandalism. It is possible this was accidental. If he continues to do this to VfD without explanation then do block him again, but I think Rick's block of him so soon after you left him a message on his talk page may have been too soon. Angela 03:42, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw my reply to RickK, but in case not - I am happy for him to be blocked if it happens again as he will have had time to read his talk page by then. Browser issues do cause complete blanking, not just truncation. See BL's talk page for example [1]. I'm not sure the fact the did it three times is evidence either. He could have genuinely been a newbie who couldn't understand why his edits were not saving properly. Perhaps I'm in too nice a mood today. :) Angela

Sorry, it appears I was wrong. I was assuming too much good faith! I got Tim Starling to look in the 216.68.43.85 issue. It seems highly unlikely the blanking was accidental. After he blanked it, he went to the history, and refreshed the page every few seconds until someone reverted it. Then immediately after Rick blocked him he tried to revert the page to an earlier version, but the obviously that edit was blocked. He then read some pages and left at 3.47, which was after I unblocked him. Angela 04:21, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

About the Sea Peoples article: I've been meaning to rewrite it for a long time, but I've had other topics I wanted to finish first. And now for the Canaan article. :-/ -- llywrch 01:06, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ugh. Actually, I meant to say Phoenicia, not Canaan. I was in a rush to get my dinner. -- llywrch 03:03, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Tasked Well if it is a verb it's still bloody awful usage and should be banished. It's like "I texted him a message on my phone". Mintguy 22:16, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dear Adam, i just saw you in recent changes. Do you remember somebody else to add in List of youngsters in history? And twins? Cheers, Muriel

Jean Chrétien

The fact that he talks out of the side of his mouth is extremely comical, but I can accept that their might be a more professional way to express the concept. I am thinking of saying something along the lines of "His tendency to talk out of the side of his mouth, while medically caused, can be seen as indicative of his overall political persona." JackLynch

I don't agree

When reading the entry for mr. cretien, I found that it was lacking in any real insight into his nature and legacy, his persona. What immediately sprang to mind was the dry and unrevealing mention of his intruiging malady. I read at length what I found on the discussion page, and saw that while there was confusion as to the nature of the condition, there was a complete lack of mention of what impression he makes, and how this is imvolved. JackLynch

sorry if I upset you, but...

I'm a new editor, only a week or so. I don't mean to be bothersome, and definately don't mean to have any "wars" or whatnot. I simply have an opinion about how mr. cretien might be remembered. I know what I remember him for, and what my canadadian friends know him for, and it wasn't really expressed in his entry, until now. I understand that you might feel differently, and I took your "juvenile" comment to hear when making my 2nd, in my opinion more proffesional, comment. JackLynch

You may want to add your voice to: Wikipedia talk:Don't include copies of primary sources --mav 07:16, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, please can you remember to update Wikipedia:Protected page when you protect or unprotect a page. Thanks. Angela 16:06, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In response to your concerns about the year in Canada articles. While the shorter ones are not of much use, with expansion I do think the timeline will eventually be a useful tool. An example of this is 1998 in Canada, which contains far too much information for the basic 1998 article, but is still somewhat useful. - SimonP 17:30, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

I would like to express a heartfelt thanks to: Κσυπ Cyp , Cimon Avaro on a pogostick, snoyes, Adam Bishop , Secretlondon, Hephaestos , 207.189.98.44 , Jamesday, Pakaran for nominating me and supporting me. It is encouraging to know that my efforts over the past 6 months have been appreciated. I prize your actions all the more knowing that many of you were not familiar with my work and had to do some research to decide whether to support me or not (because I limit my contributions to the 750 business/economics articles) . Thank you for the time, the effort, and the confidence.

There was a minority that did not support me because of my name. It seems that half have a problem because they read “shat” into it and half because of the word “god”. I find this amazing. The people that read “shat” into the character string had to ignore the commonly used word “hat” and pick out a word that has not been in common use for more than a century. My spell checker is currently telling me that the word dosn’t exist. One complainant insisted on converting “Monad” into “gonads” and “Excrescent” into “excrement”. Another saw “a dog eating a bone” as a sexual act. All I can say to these people is “Get professional help”.

As for changing my name, I have decided not to do that for two reasons. One is a philosophical reason. For an explanation, read The Crucible, particularly where John Proctor declares the importance of your name. The price of adminship is too high. The other reason is a practical one. I find it useful to use the same name on all my online activities. It is interesting that two universities and several commercial sites don’t have a problem with my name. Maybe it is not all that surprising since they are not inhabited by trolls trying to forward their cause.

Hope to see you around the business/economics pages in the future. mydogategodshat 03:08, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I like the editing since it means someone's reading these pages. Sometimes I leave some links unmade to see how long it takes for them to get created. Anyway, some of the Flemish articles are kinda stubby, so if you've got some more useful info somewhere.... Loren Rosen 06:11, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Would it be worth someone nominating Mydogategodshat again? I was thinking of writing something along the lines of "Excellent contributions, and this user has now shown that he will not give up his ideals (submission to seemingly irrational orders to change username) in order to gain more power (adminship). This demonstrates that he is unlikely to abuse or be corrupted by admin powers.". But I decided a potential second nomination would probably be better by someone other than me, though. (Asking a few people this.) Κσυπ Cyp 13:11, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I suggest you read first, then comment. You said: Especially you, Angelique - calling everyone a racist etc etc is more of a "bannable" offense than whatever wrongs you think Mathieu has committed. --- Dear Adam -- I said no such thing : it was Mathieu and/or Tremblay who labeled everyone a racist with the insertion into Lionel Groulx -- I said I would not tolerate it. But I did say what these two have written on this page, is racism. I am fully qualified to write on the history of Quebec and will get around to New France but again, if you had read before speaking, you would see that "your work" on New France is not acceptable to Mathieu/Tremblay who have stated they plan to change the New France article. I can assure you, I will make certain that the article conforms to Wikipedia policy and is NPOV and factual. In future, please do not make any comments to or about me until you have facts. Angelique 17:23, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In response, I repeat: In future, please do not make any comments to or about me until you have facts. I resent people who talk without bothering to check the facts. You may give all the "advice" you want, but read first before opening mouth. My edits are ALL factual and proper. And I will edit in accordance with Wikipedia policy unless of course there is a new policy that approves of bigotry and racism in Wikipedia articles? Angelique 17:34, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello Adam. I am sure that we both have different points of view on Quebec, but with your degree in history, we will most likely be able to cooperate and have a decent looking, NPOV, History of Quebec and Canada. English is my second language. I make awful typos and don't always write clear sentences, but I know every detail of the political history of Quebec, from the point of view of London, Quebec, and Ottawa. You know that the history of this federation is very political. The only thing we can do is write good articles, including all the details in their rightful historical context and let people think what they want. Is that how you understand NPOV too? -- Mathieugp 23:10, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Argh, it's a shame to hear that you won't be reworking History of Quebec, Adam. I was counting on your arbitration to sort it out! I think if we build very solid specific articles (like New France and eventually Quiet Revolution) the creation of a more cohesive History of Quebec, based on the model of other History of... articles, will come naturally.

I've started an edit of Quiet Revolution on my hard-drive and I'm sure Mathieugp can do plenty of work too. Do you think you can incorporate the events of History of Quebec into New France? Tremblay 20:42, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stan, a new user has rewritten List of Roman Emperors -- only to harm that article, I fear. I reverted his changes. Please compare the differences & express your opinion in the Talk forum. -- llywrch 03:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dear Adam, is very simple: first get your hands in a nice drawing program like corel or ilustrator (i use corel), then you make the family tree. Sometimes its a bit like a puzzle because you have a certain width you cant surpass and gets complicated when somebody decides to marry 4 times and have 17 children. When your work of art is finished, export to a *.png format and upload. Please let me know your plans so we dont duplicate efforts. I have data to do the diagram for the scandinavian kingdoms and i'm just waiting for patience to do them. I can give you a nice site with the whole Ptolomies. If you decide to attack the egyptians, you better talk to Adam Carr because i know he is working on them. Keep me posted! Cheers, Muriel Victoria 13:06, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dear Adam, me again. I was moving discussions in the conflicts page and i noticed your comment on returning to boring subjects. Just to say that i couldnt agree more! At least in these ancient topics people behave like grown ups, as they should. The discussion about the Roman emperor move should be an example for everybody. All the best and please dont let them put you unhappy. Muriel Victoria 15:47, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Your apology is appreciated and accepted without reservation and I most certainly will go out of my way to help you or anyone else create good, factual articles in Wikipedia. And, seeing as you raised the subject of Sir John A. Macdonald more than once, I will be pleased to post an answer to Timeline of Quebec History. Thank you. Angelique 22:35, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the haymarket link. I am new to wikipedia and appreciate your help. Greenmountainboy 00:57, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Bloc Québécois - When someone says: It's not Jean, he became Jean for us. But it's not the case. His real name is John. We should not forget that --- That Mr. Bishop, is racism. Please edit anything you wanbt, but do not change facts in articles for no reason. Angelique 03:34, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

One more note because you show a consistent lack of both knowledge of facts as well as comprehension. He is "John" (English) -- "We should not forget that" - This is Paizeau's "we" - We the French - the ethic vote, the monied. It is racism in its purest and most unacceptable form. Angelique 03:37, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! (Darn floating IPs.) -- Cyan 19:55, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

They're the same person, certainly...I'm going to turn the just Richmond one into a redirect, since I think my new page is more elegant (Lord Rockingham instead of Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham, and so forth. john 00:08, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I believe this anonymous IP to be banned user EofT. See User:142.177.etc for a bit of background. I'm erasing this guy's contributions because a hardban that nobody does anything about isn't soft security - it's weak security. -- Cyan 20:52, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Vandalism of the United States article

Some repeat offender has a stupid AOL address, so I cant perm ban the guy. I opened Talk:United States about the matter. If he does it again, im protecting the page. WhisperToMe 00:51, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Morituri te salutant

You were right, and I realized my mistake halfway through the explanation I had written for my change (now reverted). AFAIK, the phrase only occurs once, as "ave imperator! morituri te salutant", in Suetonius' life of Claudius. --MIRV 23:44, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Presence

Thanks for the note, Adam. I don't think Wikipedia has to be worthy of my presence, though. Certainly no place else has ever considered that important. They might stop bouncing Canadians for offending members of other nationalities, though. The quest for knowledge is not, I believe, supposed to be conducted under Marquess of Queensbury rules. If we have to start worrying if we're offending someone else then this place will quickly end up the Tightarsedopedia. Before I disappear for another few weeks I'll go check the excellent article about London, Ontario &#8211 a model article. Trontonian 00:41, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Lord Stanley

It is true that a manual move has been done. However, is it not true that it is impossible for a "Move this page" to be done when another page exists? The other page was a redirect, I believe, and even if the redirect were erased, the automatic move would be prevented. -- Lord Emsworth 22:37, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

I was unaware that moving the page would work if it was only a redirect. Well, then, please delete Frederick Arthur Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby. I will meanwhile reinstate the Lord Stanley article, and then move it to the appropriate place. -- Lord Emsworth 22:42, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

I did not move any other pages. With the Marquess, I merely fixed a double-redirect, and also one that involved a misspelling (Fitzmuairce instead of Fitzmaurice, I think.) -- Lord Emsworth 22:51, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Battle of Andrinople

Hello,

Here is the first image: Greatpatton 00:44, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Eusebius

Your article on kings of Athens links to Eusebius, which is a disambiguation page. I'm leaning towards guessing Eusebius of Caesarea is the Eusebius in question, but am not sufficiently familiar with him to be able to say whether it's likely he wrote a chronology of Athenian kings. --Delirium 08:35, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)